----- Original Message ----- From: <RootsWeb-Help-D-request@rootsweb.com> To: <RootsWeb-Help-D@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 10:01 AM Subject: RootsWeb-Help-D Digest V01 #55

I received the following message from someone who's having trouble posting to the list. Please reply directly to Jane at goodsell@infi.net Mona +++++++ Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:19:32 -0500 From: Jane Goodsell <goodsell@infi.net> To: RootsWeb-Help-L <RootsWeb-Help-L@rootsweb.com> I am having a problem with Tables. I am setting up page 2, of my county records and have checked it a dozen times and compared it with page 1, but cannot find the error. The cells are aligned correctly, but when I click on any one of them it goes up to the county header instead of down to the information. I have only six cells done so far and am just stuck. Can any one help please? Jane Goodsell, CC ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

In a message dated 3/29/01 6:51:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, belle@bigcountry.net writes: > What are they talking about !! > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "nancy" <kittz2@yahoo.com> > To: <arindepe-admin@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 5:08 PM > Subject: no mail > > > > i am getting no mail from several rootsweb > > mailing lists. i am able to receive mail from > > individuals but not from the list itself. from > > the mail i do get, i can tell that others are > > experiencing this problem with rootsweb also. > > > > i am not on AOL. Another list member did some > > research and was told that: if list owner will > > contact "community action team" at > > 1-888-265-8004 and get on a WHITE LIST, this will > > correct the problem of mail not going thru. > > > > hoping this will do some good.............. > > nancy > Who knows--but it sounds like nonsense to me. In any case, I'd tell her that since her address is properly subscribed to the list and you aren't getting bounces (assuming you aren't) that this means that RootsWeb is sending out the list mail to her properly. Tell her that it is up to her to contact Yahoo to get the matter straightened out and that the problem isn't on RootsWeb's end. Joan

Whatever is going on with the "no mail" problem, it appears it is a Yahoo problem. I just received 6 bounces for my list, all in one msg, and all of them Yahoo addies. Nel

What are they talking about !! ----- Original Message ----- From: "nancy" <kittz2@yahoo.com> To: <arindepe-admin@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 5:08 PM Subject: no mail > i am getting no mail from several rootsweb > mailing lists. i am able to receive mail from > individuals but not from the list itself. from > the mail i do get, i can tell that others are > experiencing this problem with rootsweb also. > > i am not on AOL. Another list member did some > research and was told that: if list owner will > contact "community action team" at > 1-888-265-8004 and get on a WHITE LIST, this will > correct the problem of mail not going thru. > > hoping this will do some good.............. > nancy > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text >

In a message dated 3/26/01 7:58:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, jeanlee@harenet.net writes: > Please remember that all data you get off of the internet and from other > secondary sources should be documented by returning to those dusty rooms > :-) and obtaining the actual data. Then when well documented upload the > corrected and documented data. Use the data from the internet and CD's > as a tool to help you not as the end result. > -- Jean- Absolutely--I wasn't discounting the need for proof. However, most of us (using myself as an example) have made contacts through family trees and other secondary resources on the Internet that have led to the exchange of primary data that we or they already have in their possession. Just this last week I've copied and mailed photocopies of wills, birth, and death records for folks who found me or I found them through lists and boards, or WorldConnect files. That's certainly is a whole lot easier way to get the documentation than how we all used to have to do it. We also have much easier access to privately held family data such as family Bibles with so many folks transcribing that data and posting it to GenConnect boards or adding it to WorldConnect file documentation. Before Internet genealogy only the immediate family had access to this type of data in most cases. Joan

This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C0B5C3.B34B98A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Maybe it's a good time to post my "3 rules" again. = Loren P Meissner Genealogist Barbara Yancey Dore asks: Can a first cousin, once removed, ever return? -----Original Message----- From: Jean Leeper [mailto:jeanlee@harenet.net] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 3:57 AM To: RootsWeb-Help-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [RW-Help] World Connect and other data on-line [...] >> To sum it up...I think we've become spoiled. We want instant ancestors. I >> don't think we can ever have TOO MUCH information. >> >> Joan Please remember that all data you get off of the internet and from other secondary sources should be documented by returning to those dusty rooms [...] ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C0B5C3.B34B98A0 Content-Type: text/plain; name="_Some Rules of Genealogy.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="_Some Rules of Genealogy.txt" Here is a little essay that I wrote a couple of years ago. Later, when I = visited a cousin in Georgia, I realized that the "family seaweed" = mentioned in #1 below is really a "family Kudzu vine." The traditional = family tree was OK for up to a couple of hundred names, but now we = routinely go into the thousands. =3D Loren P Meissner Genealogist Barbara Yancey Dore asks:=20 Can a first cousin, once removed, ever return? Subject: A couple of observations Well, maybe 3. I have been searching family records for about 50 years, = and I started doing it on the computer about 1998. Here are some = observations that have occurred to me: 1. =3D =3D =3D There's no such thing as a "family tree." I might settle for "family ivy = vine" or "family seaweed." It goes up and down and in all directions: = parents and grandparents of your children's spouses go up; 3rd and 4th = cousins go back down, and their spouses go sideways, and the parents of = these go back up again. This is one reason for the popularity of computer genealogy. The = computer stores individuals and family groups. When you enter the data, = the computer links individuals to other individuals and to the family = groups that hold them together. The computer does not have a problem if = your grandmother and grandfather were first cousins: This just means = that there are now two links between these individuals - the original = link when they were born as cousins, and another link when they got = married. But the problem still remains: how can a person picture all of these = relationships? Some of the most important differences among the many = genealogy software products lie in their "reports" facilities: How can = you bring out a group of related individuals onto a sheet of paper (or = several sheets pasted together) in a way that persons - as contrasted = with computers - can understand and communicate to other persons? The = many different kinds of reports are attempts to represent these "family = seaweed" relationships on a flat surface in a way that persons can = understand. 2. =3D =3D =3D The question, "How did my great grandfather spell his middle name?" is = not as simple as you might think. The biggest problem is that your great = grandfather might not have known how to read and write. I recently read = a book that quotes studies of wills made in the USA before about 1800. = According to this book, about 80 percent of all wills were signed with = an X because the person making the will did not know how to write his or = her own name. There could be some bias here, of course: some folks who = knew how to write could have been too sick to sign their wills; but on = the other hand, a lot of the illiterate people did not make any will at = all. Two hundred years or more ago, there was no Webster's dictionary; many = words did not have a fixed spelling. I suspect that words were mainly = thought of as sounds rather than as written symbols. A word was its = sound, and the written symbol was only useful for remembering the sound. = Maybe your great grandfather would consider "How do you spell your = name?" to be a meaningless question. (I never spell it myself, I just = write an X. You can spell it any way you want. Just call me Hezekiah = when you speak to me.) We have heard that at Ellis Island immigrants were asked their names and = the immigration official wrote down something that approximated what he = heard. Apparently, some of the more literate immigrants were able to = correct the written version, because quite a lot of names turned out = quite close to the way they had been spelled in Europe. [Addendum Jun = 2000: A recent article states that Ellis Island officials usually got = the names from the ship's passenger list, and the immigrants changed = their names later.] Educated immigrants, as well as many of the descendants of aristocratic = families, were already keeping careful records well before the year = 1600. But on the American frontier the facilities for registering = births, deaths, and marriages were extremely rudimentary. There were no = county court houses. The only church was a circuit rider under a grove = of trees, who performed marriages and baptisms every few weeks when he = rode by. Grave markers were insubstantial pine boards. The situation has = improved tremendously in recent years, but the debate over the year 2000 = US Census reminds us that there are still pockets where problems exist. We should not be surprised to find that some ancestors didn't even spell = their own name the same way throughout their life. A lot of my uncles, = aunts, and grandparents changed the spellings of their names and added = middle names or initials. It was easy to do and nobody cared, until much = later when they went in the army or registered for Social Security or = otherwise got involved with some part of the government bureaucracy that = wanted to be able to identify them uniquely by their name (and other = data such as date and place of birth, or names of parents). Noah Webster's dictionary (1806) reflected the "new" idea that a word = should always be spelled the same way. Social Security (1935) and = registration requirements during World War II helped spread the idea = that everyone should have a fixed NAME, they should always use the same = name, and they should spell it the same way every time. To move into the = culture of the 20th century, everybody had to get an automobile driving = license, then a checking account, and then a credit card, all with the = same fixed name. Our children take all of this for granted. Nowadays a = baby can't leave the maternity ward without a Social Security number. 3. =3D =3D =3D Never believe anything you read (or hear). A place to start collecting = genealogical information, as we all know, is with Aunt Daisy - that is, = the matriarch (or patriarch) who remembers everything and is happy to = tell everybody about it. But Aunt Daisy doesn't always remember = correctly. Contemporary printed records are much better. Obituaries, for example. = But were you ever present while somebody dictated the facts for an = obituary just after a death? If so, you recognize that obituaries tend = to be thrown together without too much attention to accuracy. The person = who knows the facts best has just died, so what results is hearsay at = best, and is more likely based partly on some rather vague recollections = and conjectures. The same is true of tombstones and death certificates. After a little experience with genealogical searching, you begin to = realize that sometimes a person getting a marriage license doesn't even = remember exactly when he or she was born, much less how to spell Mom's = maiden name. I even found a mistake in the Social Security Death Index, stating a = death date about 6 months too early for a cousin of mine. And my mother = found out when she was about 50 years old that her birth record at the = County Court House listed her as a male. ANYTHING you collect should be taken as a starting point for further = research. The more independent sources you have, the more reliable your = data is likely to be. But you still have to guard against mistakes that = propagate from one record to another: Grandma's date of birth is wrong = in the Family Bible (or even at the County Court House), and it is = copied from there to her marriage license, her obituary, her tombstone, = and her death certificate. =3D =3D =3D Loren P. Meissner LPMeissner@msn.com ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C0B5C3.B34B98A0--

>>> But, even the LDS quit trying to merge GEDCOMs into one lineage-linked >>> database because they faced too many "judgment calls". So we live with an >>> embarrassment of riches. >>> >> >> Cheryl- >> >> This comment isn't directed at you personally, <g> but 10 years ago when >> most of us did *all* our research in dusty, dimly lit courthouse basements or >> hunched over microfilm readers in a Family History Center spending many >> months to unravel ONE generation of one line of our ancestry, and snail mail >> was the about the only way to contact others with information on our >> ancestors, I think we'd have jumped at the chance to spend a few hours >> "online" in the comfort of our homes sorting through 12, 14, or even 20 >> GEDCOMs to see what documentation and sources are listed and what new >> "cousins" we can chat with to overcome obstacles and sort out what is >> accurate and what isn't. >> >> To sum it up...I think we've become spoiled. We want instant ancestors. I >> don't think we can ever have TOO MUCH information. >> >> Joan Please remember that all data you get off of the internet and from other secondary sources should be documented by returning to those dusty rooms :-) and obtaining the actual data. Then when well documented upload the corrected and documented data. Use the data from the internet and CD's as a tool to help you not as the end result. -- Sincerely, Jean Leeper jeanlee@harenet.net "Watch What You Say or Do, You Might Sell Your Parrot To The Town Gossip" Register Report: http://www.harenet.net/~jeanlee Every Name Index: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jeanlee Marion County IA Gen.Soc.: http://www.rootsweb.com/~iamcgs/Index.html Researching: WILMETH, HIGGOTT, THORNELOE, HALL, ERSKINE/MARRS, REISINGER & MCILVAINE ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

In a message dated 3/25/01 9:28:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, dsam@sampubco.com writes: > is it of any difficulty to add one little box to indicate there are > sources listed? David- Every genealogy program I know of includes a field for sources and a field for notes. These fields may or may not be (at the submitter's discretion) included in the GEDCOM uploaded to WorldConnect. Additionally WorldConnect offers the submitter the option of including or excluding sources and notes in the family tree as displayed on WorldConnect. Many submitters with impecable sources and notes do not choose to display them. They'd rather discuss them privately with interested researchers and that is entirely their privilege. Joan

I'm not sure a "box" indicating a record is sourced would be all that helpful. I've seen files that are "sourced" using LDS, someone's WFT Tree, or just the name of an individual. To me these aren't sources that are all that meaningful. I've also seen files with no sources at all, but with a note from the owner telling you he/she will provide sources upon request. My own file would not always show a source because I have placed the complete will (which proves the children) or other pertinent documents within the Notes section. My own technique is to ignore records that contain no dates, spouse, and/or locations. It is my assumption that the owner doesn't have any more info than I do on this individual. Just my rambling thoughts....... Nel

In a message dated 3/25/01 6:53:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, singhals@erols.com writes: > Actually, that won't "overcome" anything. It simply ADDS to the problem. (g) > I was hunting for something over there the other day and of 16 "hits" 4 > appeared to be someone who had gotten into the database by accident because > there was no data, no parent, no spouse. Four more had one piece of info > each (NOT the same piece, of course). Three of the others had full data, > and it differed wildly; the rest seemed to have done a pick'n'choose off > the three with full data. Tossing a 17th "hit" in there will only > complicate matters, EVEN if it's totally accurate and fully documented. > > But, even the LDS quit trying to merge GEDCOMs into one lineage-linked > database because they faced too many "judgment calls". So we live with an > embarrassment of riches. > Cheryl- This comment isn't directed at you personally, <g> but 10 years ago when most of us did *all* our research in dusty, dimly lit courthouse basements or hunched over microfilm readers in a Family History Center spending many months to unravel ONE generation of one line of our ancestry, and snail mail was the about the only way to contact others with information on our ancestors, I think we'd have jumped at the chance to spend a few hours "online" in the comfort of our homes sorting through 12, 14, or even 20 GEDCOMs to see what documentation and sources are listed and what new "cousins" we can chat with to overcome obstacles and sort out what is accurate and what isn't. To sum it up...I think we've become spoiled. We want instant ancestors. I don't think we can ever have TOO MUCH information. Joan

Joan, is it of any difficulty to add one little box to indicate there are sources listed? W. David Samuelsen JYoung6180@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 3/25/01 6:53:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, > singhals@erols.com writes: > > > Actually, that won't "overcome" anything. It simply ADDS to the problem. > (g) > > I was hunting for something over there the other day and of 16 "hits" 4 > > appeared to be someone who had gotten into the database by accident because > > there was no data, no parent, no spouse. Four more had one piece of info > > each (NOT the same piece, of course). Three of the others had full data, > > and it differed wildly; the rest seemed to have done a pick'n'choose off > > the three with full data. Tossing a 17th "hit" in there will only > > complicate matters, EVEN if it's totally accurate and fully documented. > > > > But, even the LDS quit trying to merge GEDCOMs into one lineage-linked > > database because they faced too many "judgment calls". So we live with an > > embarrassment of riches. > > > Cheryl- > > This comment isn't directed at you personally, <g> but 10 years ago when > most of us did *all* our research in dusty, dimly lit courthouse basements or > hunched over microfilm readers in a Family History Center spending many > months to unravel ONE generation of one line of our ancestry, and snail mail > was the about the only way to contact others with information on our > ancestors, I think we'd have jumped at the chance to spend a few hours > "online" in the comfort of our homes sorting through 12, 14, or even 20 > GEDCOMs to see what documentation and sources are listed and what new > "cousins" we can chat with to overcome obstacles and sort out what is > accurate and what isn't. > > To sum it up...I think we've become spoiled. We want instant ancestors. I > don't think we can ever have TOO MUCH information. > > Joan >

At 03:42 PM 03/25/2001 EST, JYoung6180@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 3/25/01 10:46:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, >cmrichards@blueyonder.co.uk writes: > >> What is the appropriate forum for comments on Worldconnect? Very many of >> the entries now duplicate each other and it can be hard to discover which >Ultimately, the best way to overcome misinformation or incomplete information >you find in other WorldConnect files is to upload your own database to >WorldConnect. Actually, that won't "overcome" anything. It simply ADDS to the problem. (g) I was hunting for something over there the other day and of 16 "hits" 4 appeared to be someone who had gotten into the database by accident because there was no data, no parent, no spouse. Four more had one piece of info each (NOT the same piece, of course). Three of the others had full data, and it differed wildly; the rest seemed to have done a pick'n'choose off the three with full data. Tossing a 17th "hit" in there will only complicate matters, EVEN if it's totally accurate and fully documented. But, even the LDS quit trying to merge GEDCOMs into one lineage-linked database because they faced too many "judgment calls". So we live with an embarrassment of riches. Cheryl *_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_* Cheryl Singhal (Singhals@erols.com) http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~cpafug/ http://www.rootsweb.com/~wvhampsh/ http://www.capaccess.org/com/troop763/ http://www.fortunecity.com/millennium/blyton/772/ (Bottony Cross DAR) http://www.rootsweb.com/~cresap/ http://members.fortunecity.com/csinghal1/ (Joanna Waddill UDC)

In a message dated 3/25/01 10:46:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, cmrichards@blueyonder.co.uk writes: > What is the appropriate forum for comments on Worldconnect? Very many of > the entries now duplicate each other and it can be hard to discover which if > any contain useful source information. I've put in a post'em for one entry > where mine has much more detail but I wonder if there is any way of grouping > what look like multiple entries for the same person. > Christopher Richards Hi, Christopher- Comments and suggestions regarding WorldConnect may be made on the WorldConnect Suggestions board: http://genconnect.rootsweb.com/gc/gedcom However, since you have asked on this list and there may be others with the same question--here goes... WorldConnect is comprised of many family trees contributed by many diverse submitters, housed in one central location on the Internet, all made searchable by one global search engine. Many WorldConnect family trees contain entries that duplicate, contradict, and supplement one another. When a submitter uploads a file to WorldConnect, he is not contributing to one master database, but rather creating his own individual Web site where he may display the results of his own research. RootsWeb isn't in a position to be the judge as to whose research is accurate and whose is not. Entries cannot be combined for all of the above reasons. It is all there, just as each submitter recorded it in his file, and the decision as to the merits of that information is left to future researchers. Compare the data and reach your own conclusions. Add Post-em Notes leaving behind any information you have to contribute. Ultimately, the best way to overcome misinformation or incomplete information you find in other WorldConnect files is to upload your own database to WorldConnect. Joan

What is the appropriate forum for comments on Worldconnect? Very many of the entries now duplicate each other and it can be hard to discover which if any contain useful source information. I've put in a post'em for one entry where mine has much more detail but I wonder if there is any way of grouping what look like multiple entries for the same person. Christopher Richards ----- Original Message ----- From: <RootsWeb-Help-D-request@rootsweb.com> To: <RootsWeb-Help-D@rootsweb.com> Sent: 25 March 2001 08:01 Subject: RootsWeb-Help-D Digest V01 #52

Can someone tell me what I am doing wrong? This is my first attempt at loading pictures. My page is http://www.rootsweb.com/~mohickor/index.html. I am trying to load pictures to Mulberry School and Clark School. They are on my source side. FTP says the transactions have been completed. They show on the remote site. When I check the site all that shows is the little red box where the picture should be. I know there must be a simple answer. Thank you. Linda

Hi Peggy, Visit http://passwordcentral.rootsweb.com and request all password info on www accounts. The information will be emailed to you. Make sure you are typing your password in exactly as it is written - in upper and lower case. Good luck! -- Best wishes, Carol Hepburn chepburn@uswest.net Phoenix, AZ USA

Try their coustomer Service: http://www.service@imail.ipswitch.com You might need to be able to tell them the serial number and date of purchase. Gene

Hi, Nancy -- this is a GenConnect question, and most people using this list may not be GC admins. However, notification bounces are as easy as pie to fix. Just click on the bottom link in your bounce message, and paste in the bouncing address "diana1944@hotmail.com", click the remove button, and off she goes! Good luck, Valorie Nancy Dixon wrote: > > The message below appeared in the above RootsWeb-Help: Will somebody > please answer to the list. I am as puzzled as the sender, and have not > been able to find how to stop these annoying messages. > > Nan Dixon > > > Subject: [RW-Help] Fw: Returned mail: see transcript for details > > Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 19:59:40 -0600 > > From: "Carolyn" <cbh@eatel.net> > > To: RootsWeb-Help-L@rootsweb.com > > . > > I have received several of these messages today > > but can't find my instructions to see what to do about this. HELP Please!! > > > > Carolyn > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mail Delivery Subsystem" <MAILER-DAEMON@cgi.rootsweb.com> > > To: <cbh@eatel.net> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 5:44 PM > > Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details > > > > > The original message was received at Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:38:22 -0700 > > > from nobody@localhost > > > > > > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- > > > diana1944@hotmail.com > > > (reason: 550 Requested action not taken:user account inactive) > > > > > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- > > > ... while talking to mc4.law5.hotmail.com.: > > > >>> RCPT To:<diana1944@hotmail.com> > > > <<< 550 Requested action not taken:user account inactive > > > 550 5.1.1 diana1944@hotmail.com... User unknown . > > Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 Requested action not taken:user account inactive . > > Content-Type: message/rfc822; > > name="New Washington Parish, LA Queries Post.eml" . > > Received: (from nobody@localhost) > > by cgi.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f2ENcMQ23054; > > Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:38:22 -0700 > > Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:38:22 -0700 > > Message-Id: <200103142338.f2ENcMQ23054@cgi.rootsweb.com> > > X-Authentication-Warning: cgi.rootsweb.com: nobody set sender to cbh@eatel.net using -f > > From: gc-notice@genconnect.rootsweb.com > > Subject: New Washington Parish, LA Queries Post > > > > Washington Parish, LA Queries > > A new message, "Samuel Givens/Hennessey Cemetery," was posted by Susan > > Givens Jones on Wed, 14 Mar 2001 > > > > Surname: GIVENS, VARNADO > > > > This is an automatically-generated notice. If you'd like to be removed > > from the mailing list, please visit the Washington Parish, LA Queries: > > > > <http://genconnect.rootsweb.com/gc/USA/La/Washington#Subscribe> .

I am the coordinator for a county website and I am not being able to upload my updated information. Can someone tell me where I can verify my "user name" and password for use when uploading. I am using WS_FTP LE to transfer my files. Thanks in advance. Peggy Burks Lubbock County